two religious thinkers robert ford campany Two Religious Thinkers of the Early Eastern Jin: Gan Bao and Ge Hong in Multiple Contexts The other world will be admirable for Congruities. Benjamin Whichcote1 OPENING hina during the Eastern Jin dynasty (317–420 ad), as during the C previous Western Jin (265–317), is often portrayed as a time in ᖂ), “pure conversation” (qingtan 堚خ which “dark learning” (xuan xue ᓫ), and reclusion were the universal norm. Such iconic cultural figures as Tao Qian ຯᑨ (365?–427), Sun Chuo ୪ጶ (ca. 300–380), and Shi are often suggested to have exclusively set (385–312) ڜDaoan ᤩሐ the tone for intellectual life. In the following essay I want to compli- cate our picture of this dynastic period by presenting an interpretation of the religious thought of two authors from its early years, Gan Bao եᣪ (d. 336) and Ge Hong ᆼੋ (283–343).2 How to proceed in such an undertaking is by no means self-evident. Much will depend on the framing, terminology, and questions, and so these must be considered carefully at the outset. An early version of this paper was delivered at a workshop on the Eastern Jin sponsored by the Harvard-Yenching Institute and the Fairbank Center at Harvard University. I would like to thank Michael Puett and Tian Xiaofei for their kind invitation to the workshop, and the other workshop participants, particularly Wilt Idema and Robert Gimello, for helpful comments. David Knechtges very kindly provided both interpretive and bibliographic suggestions that have proven extremely fruitful, and the anonymous readers, John Kieschnick, and Howard L. Goodman also contributed useful comments and corrections. 1 Benjamin Whichcote (1609–1683), Moral and Religious Aphorisms (London: Elkin Mathews & Marrot, 1930), p. 101. I am grateful to Anthony C. Yu for bringing to my atten- tion this aphorism (no. 905) of the Anglican divine and Cambridge Platonist; see epigraph to Yu, “‘Rest, Rest, Perturbed Spirit!’ Ghosts in Traditional Chinese Prose Fiction,” H J AS 47 (1987), pp. 397–434. 2 On Ge Hong’s dates, see Nathan Sivin, “On the Pao P’u Tzu Nei P’ien and the Life of Ko Hung (283–343),” Isis 60 (1969), pp. 388–91, and Gary Arbuckle, “When Did Ge Hong Die?” B.C. Asian Review 2 (1988), pp. 1–7. On the date of Gan Bao’s death, see Jiankang shilu ৬ൈኔᙕ (SKQS zhenben liuji edn.) 7, p. 25b; my thanks to Stephen R. Bokenkamp for this reference, which, among other things, has prompted me to revise the estimate of the dates of composition of Gan’s Soushen ji as stated in Robert Ford Campany, Strange Writing: Anomaly 175 robert ford campany First, it is necessary to recognize that religious, intellectual, and cultural “traditions,” as we sometimes like to call them, are not entities; they are, to borrow Benedict Anderson’s phrase, “imagined communi- ties,” with emphasis on “imagined.”3 Nor are they pure, unitary wholes. Consider these lines from an essay by Jonathan Z. Smith: The traditional vague terminology of “Early Christianity,” “Jew- ish,” “Gentile,” “Pagan,” “Greco-Oriental,” etc. will not suffice. Each of these generic terms denote[s] complex plural phenomena. For purposes of comparison, they must be disaggregated and each component compared with respect to some larger topic of schol- arly interest. That is to say, with respect to this or that feature, modes of Christianity may differ more significantly between themselves than between some mode of one or another Late Antique religion. The pre- supposition of “holism” is not “phenomenological,” it is a major, conservative, theoretical presupposition which has done much mischief in the study of religious materials.4 The point applies to early-medieval China as much as the late-antique West. I am therefore determined to avoid describing elements of the Eastern Jin cultural scene in terms of how they related to one or an- other of the familiar “isms,” because I do not think it is either heuris- tically helpful or historically (or ontologically) accurate to describe them this way. Secondly, individuals and texts do not “belong to” one or another tradition in any simple, essentialized way. Traditions are not contain- ers of people or texts. There lingers a stubbornly persistent conceit according to which it ought to be possible to decide, once and for all, from the surviving writings of a literate figure whether he at bottom belonged to this or to that tradition, or simply was, as we like to say, a this rather than a that.5 It would make sense on this model, for in- Accounts in Early Medieval China (Albany: SUNY Press, 1996), p. 55. 3 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Na- tionalism, 2d edn. (London: Versa, 1991), pp. 6–7. 4 Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: U. Chicago P., 1990), pp. 117–18, emphasis added. For more on this and the following points, see my “On the Very Idea of Religions (in the Modern West and in Early Medieval China),” History of Religions 42 (2003), pp. 287–319. 5 A perfect exemplar of this hopelessly flawed approach, applied to Tao Qian, appeared in print just a few years ago: Donald Holzman, “A Dialogue with the Ancients: Tao Qian’s Interrogation of Confucius,” in S. Pearce, A. Spiro, and P. Ebrey, eds., Culture and Power in the Reconstitution of the Chinese Realm, 200–600 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U.P., 2001), pp. 75–98. The essay is further flawed in its attempt to determine the container to which Tao Qian truly belonged by means of counting up the number of his references to texts belonging to one or another container. 176 two religious thinkers stance, to ask whether Ge Hong was really a Daoist or a Confucian, since he left evidence to suggest either or both. But there are much more sophisticated and true-to-life models for characterizing how peo- ple participate in and relate to traditions of thought and practice. The best such model is that of multiple repertoires from which people select items useful for particular purposes or to which they refer when doing intellectual work or making religious claims.6 Ann Swidler has shown that people relate to elements of their culture in this way as they ne- gotiate their lives. Questions for research include not only what is in a given repertoire but also how and in what circumstances individuals appropriate elements of each. Different repertoires work well in dif- ferent situations, and individuals often avail themselves of multiple, even contradictory repertoires at different times — indeed, even in the same conversation. If this is empirically true of contemporary Ameri- can culture, with its legacy of the Protestant model of exclusivist de- nominational allegiance, it must have been even more deeply true of a culture like that of the Eastern Jin, in which no exclusivist paradigm of religious participation existed despite the presence of multiple re- ligious repertoires on the scene. When characterizing the relations of individuals and texts to imagined communities, then, this model of repertoires is the one I will use. Nor were China’s traditions unitary or uniform essences, each with a core identity; the loose assemblage of repertoires, lineages, ideas, values, figures, and texts that we facilely label “Daoism” was by 317 ad extremely variegated and complex, as Nathan Sivin argued decades ago.7 None of this is to deny, on the other hand, that some in early-me- dieval China had strong preferences and allegiances to what they per- ceived as a uniquely authoritative tradition. It is rather to suggest that we will find on close inspection that even in such cases the traditions to which they expressed adherence, and the ways in which they did so, included elements from multiple cultural repertoires. Third, despite the current preference for recovering emic catego- ries and concerns and using these to characterize individuals and their relations to traditions, I continue to find etic categories useful as well. One particular etic perspective that will prove crucial to my argument will be introduced in the next section; here I simply want to defend the usefulness of etic categories. When used skillfully, they allow us to see aspects of the scene that would remain invisible were we to render it 6 See Ann Swidler, Talk of Love: How Culture Matters (Chicago: U. Chicago P., 2001). 7 “On the Word ‘Taoist’ as a Source of Perplexity,” History of Religions 17 (1978), pp. 303–30. 177 robert ford campany merely in emic terms. They do not require that we ignore what people thought, and they are certainly not ends in themselves; rather, when used well, they are ways of seeing more clearly what people thought, or re-seeing familiar materials in new ways. In any case, if we are writ- ing in the twenty-first century, and in English, there is no alternative: the notion that we could somehow describe Eastern Jin persons and habits of thought strictly in their own terms, simply translating without remainder, is a fantasy, in part because translation itself is not tran- scription but interpretation and therefore forces emic statements into etic frameworks. We cannot shirk the responsibility and hard choices of interpretation, and, when it comes to a culture as remote in time as the Eastern Jin, what we are interpreting will always remain to some extent opaque to us. The question is not whether we will interpret, and interpret in terms of categories brought to (not recovered from) the scene, but how. Finally, even when interpreting in ways that are sensitive to emic viewpoints, as any good historian does, we do well to recall that those viewpoints were situated in multiple contexts.